Commonwealth v. Batwinas

Massachusetts Appeals Court

Commonwealth v. Batwinas

337 N.E.2d 912, 3 Mass. App. Ct. 788, 1975 Mass. App. LEXIS 838

DecidedDecember 3, 1975

StatusPublished

This text of 337 N.E.2d 912 (Commonwealth v. Batwinas) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Massachusetts Appeals Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Commonwealth v. Batwinas, 337 N.E.2d 912, 3 Mass. App. Ct. 788, 1975 Mass. App. LEXIS 838 (Mass. Ct. App. 1975).

Pincite

Opinion

The defendant was convicted after a jury trial of breaking and entering in the daytime with intent to commit a felony (G. L. c. 266, § 17) and seeks appellate review by a bill of exceptions. The defendant contends that the judge erred in denying his motion for a directed verdict. We disagree. There was sufficient evidence before the jury from which they [789]*789could reasonably infer that the defendant was guilty of the crime as charged. Commonwealth v. Tilley, 355 Mass. 507, 508 (1969). See Commonwealth v. Lewis, 346 Mass. 373, 376-377 (1963), cert. den. 376 U. S. 933 (1964). We find no merit in the defendant’s contention that certain remarks by the prosecutor during argument violated his constitutional right to remain silent. Any prejudice was cured by the judge’s prompt corrective instruction and by his instructions in the charge on the right to remain silent. Commonwealth v. Domanski, 332 Mass. 66, 69 (1954). Contrast Commonwealth v. Bennett, 2 Mass. App. Ct. 575, 583 (1974).

Joan C. Stanley for the defendant. Richard I. Clayman & John W. Gibbons, Assistant District Attorneys, for the Commonwealth, submitted a brief.

Exceptions overruled.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

The defendant was convicted after a jury trial of breaking and entering in the daytime with intent to commit a felony (G. L. c. 266, § 17) and seeks appellate review by a bill of exceptions. The defendant contends that the judge erred in denying his motion for a directed verdict. We disagree. There was sufficient evidence before the jury from which they [789]*789could reasonably infer that the defendant was guilty of the crime as charged. Commonwealth v. Tilley, 355 Mass. 507, 508 (1969). See Commonwealth v. Lewis, 346 Mass. 373, 376-377 (1963), cert. den. 376 U. S. 933 (1964). We find no merit in the defendant’s contention that certain remarks by the prosecutor during argument violated his constitutional right to remain silent. Any prejudice was cured by the judge’s prompt corrective instruction and by his instructions in the charge on the right to remain silent. Commonwealth v. Domanski, 332 Mass. 66, 69 (1954). Contrast Commonwealth v. Bennett, 2 Mass. App. Ct. 575, 583 (1974).

Joan C. Stanley for the defendant. Richard I. Clayman & John W. Gibbons, Assistant District Attorneys, for the Commonwealth, submitted a brief.

Exceptions overruled.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

337 N.E.2d 912, 3 Mass. App. Ct. 788, 1975 Mass. App. LEXIS 838, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/commonwealth-v-batwinas-massappct-1975.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack